Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Responding to Robodebt) Bill 2025: what it would change and why it matters

The short answer

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Responding to Robodebt) Bill 2025: what it would change and why it matters

Independent MP Andrew Wilkie introduced the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Responding to Robodebt) Bill 2025 in the House of Representatives on 25 August 2025. The bill is a private member's bill — meaning it was not introduced by the government — and remains before the House of Representatives at the first-reading stage. It has not passed either house and is not law. The bill would amend four Commonwealth Acts — the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999, the Social Security Act 1991, the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and the Student Assistance Act 1973 — to give legislative effect to outstanding recommendations from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. The Royal Commission, chaired by former Queensland Supreme Court Justice Catherine Holmes AC SC, delivered its final report in July 2023 after hearing from 116 witnesses over 46 sitting days. It found that the Robodebt Scheme — which used automated income averaging to calculate and raise debts against welfare recipients between 2015 and 2019 — was based largely on an unlawful application of social security law, was 'crude and cruel', and resulted in the government collecting over $750 million in unlawfully raised debts from more than 400,000 Australians. A $1.8 billion settlement was reached in a class action. The Royal Commission made 57 recommendations spanning legislative, administrative and cultural reform. The government has implemented some recommendations through administrative action, including abolishing income averaging for debt calculation and improving staff training. However, the Wilkie bill targets several clusters of recommendations that require legislative amendment and had not been implemented at the time of the bill's introduction. On debt recovery, the bill targets three distinct issues. First, it would remove existing barriers to debt waivers where a debt arose solely from a Commonwealth administrative error. Under current provisions in all four Acts, the Secretary may waive a debt attributable solely to administrative error, but only if the debtor received the payments in good faith and the debt was not raised within six weeks of the payment being made. The bill would strip out those limiting conditions. The Secretary would be required to waive any debt that was solely the result of a Commonwealth administrative error — a significantly broader obligation than the existing discretionary power. This gives partial effect to Royal Commission recommendation 18.1, which called for debt recovery policy to be fair, proportionate and equitable. Second, the bill would amend the special-circumstances waiver provisions in all four Acts to explicitly cover family and domestic violence circumstances. Notes would specify that the provisions cover acting under duress or under the influence of family or domestic violence. This is designed to allow debt waivers where a person knowingly but unwillingly provides incorrect information due to coercive control, or where a perpetrator of family violence knowingly provides false information to cause an overpayment that is then pursued against the victim. The EM states this responds to 'contemporary understandings of hardship, vulnerability, and family and domestic violence.' Third, and most structurally significant, the bill would reinstate a six-year time limit on commencing debt recovery actions. In 2018, the government removed the pre-existing six-year limitation. The Royal Commission found that removal was arbitrary and punitive, describing it as a measure that 'had no purpose other than to allow the Commonwealth to recover older debts' (recommendation 18.2). The bill would restore the six-year limit across all four Acts. On automated decision-making — the core mechanism of the Robodebt scandal, where an automated system calculated alleged debts from ATO income data without human intervention — the bill introduces two safeguards. First, where a decision affecting a recipient is made through automation, the recipient must be notified that the decision was automated and informed of their review options. Second, certain categories of high-impact automated decisions would require human oversight before taking effect: cancellation of a payment or benefit, raising a debt of $2,000 or more, exercising a discretion, reviewing a decision under Part 5, and initiating garnishee arrangements with the ATO. These respond to recommendation 17.1, which called for 'a consistent and compassionate framework for the operation of automated decision-making processes.' The Royal Commission specifically found that automated processes had been used to raise debts without adequate human oversight, treating recipients as if they were in a 'purely commercial debtor-creditor relationship' with Services Australia. The bill also extends crisis payment claim windows from 7 days to 14 days for four categories: release from gaol or psychiatric confinement, extreme circumstances forcing departure from home, remaining in a home after a family member leaves due to domestic violence, and arrival on a qualifying humanitarian visa. The EM ties this to recommendation 11.2 on vulnerability and the capacity of people in distress to engage with compliance systems. Further measures include inserting principles of good administration into each Act's objects, establishing positive duties for the Secretary drawn from recommendation 10.1 (which addressed the effects of Robodebt on individuals and called for sensitivity to financial and other stresses), requiring an annual review of all compliance activity with a report tabled in Parliament within 15 sitting days, and requiring the Secretary to have regard to the needs of people in rural, regional and remote areas. The EM states the bill would have no financial impact. As a private member's bill, its pathway to passage is narrow. Private members' bills rarely become law without government support, and the government has not indicated its position. The bill had its first reading and second reading moved on 25 August 2025 and has not progressed since. To become law it would need to pass the House, then the Senate, and receive Royal Assent. The bill would apply its debt-waiver amendments to debts incurred before, on or after commencement, meaning some past debts could be waived under the new provisions.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

What the bill proposes

The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Responding to Robodebt) Bill 2025 was introduced by Independent MP Andrew Wilkie on 25 August 2025. The bill is a direct legislative response to the findings of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, which delivered its final report on 7 July 2023. The Royal Commission, led by Commissioner Catherine Holmes AC SC, made 57 recommendations, finding that the scheme was "crude and cruel" and that it had caused "extraordinary and widespread harm."

The bill proposes amendments to the Social Security Act 1991, the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 and the Student Assistance Act 1973. Its key provisions include: establishing a statutory requirement that Centrelink debts based on income averaging be waived unless there is independent evidence the person actually incurred the debt; introducing a six-year limitation period on the recovery of social security debts; requiring human oversight of automated decision-making in debt recovery; and expanding crisis payment eligibility.

The bill is a private member's bill, not a government bill. The Albanese government has implemented some of the Royal Commission's recommendations through administrative action and has stated it is considering legislative responses, but had not introduced its own comprehensive legislative package as of July 2026. Mr Wilkie's bill seeks to implement a broader set of reforms than the government has so far adopted, drawing directly on the Royal Commission's recommendations.

Evidence review

Debt waivers for administrative errors

The bill would remove the existing limiting conditions on debt waivers where a debt was caused solely by a Commonwealth administrative error. Under current law in each of the four acts, a debt attributable solely to administrative error can be waived only if the recipient received the payments in good faith and the debt was not raised within six weeks of the payment being made. The Wilkie bill would strip out these conditions, requiring the Secretary to waive any debt that was the sole result of an administrative error. This is intended to give partial effect to Royal Commission recommendation 18.1, which called for fair, proportionate and equitable debt recovery — or non-recovery — without legislative barriers.

Evidence review

Debt waivers and family violence

The bill would amend the special-circumstances waiver provisions in all four Acts to explicitly cover circumstances of family and domestic violence. A note would be added specifying that the provisions cover acting under duress or under the influence of family or domestic violence. This is designed to allow debts to be waived where a person knowingly but unwillingly provides incorrect information due to coercive control, or where a perpetrator of family violence knowingly provides false information to cause an overpayment. The measure gives partial effect to recommendation 18.1 of the Royal Commission.

Evidence review

Six-year time limit on debt recovery

The bill proposes to insert a new provision into the Social Security Act 1991 establishing that social security debts cannot be recovered more than six years after the debt first became due and payable. This limitation period would apply to debts arising under the Social Security Act, the Family Assistance Act, and the Student Assistance Act. The six-year limit was recommended by the Royal Commission, which found that Centrelink had pursued debts dating back many years, in some cases more than a decade, based on income averaging calculations that were later found to be unlawful. The Commissioner described the practice of pursuing very old debts as causing particular distress to vulnerable people who could not reasonably have been expected to retain records from many years earlier and who had no practical means of proving they did not owe the alleged debt.

This provision is one of the most operationally significant in the bill. The absence of a statutory limitation period for social security debts is unusual in Australian law — most civil debts are subject to limitation periods under state and territory limitation legislation, but the Commonwealth is not bound by state limitation statutes. The six-year period aligns with the standard limitation period for contract and tort claims in most Australian jurisdictions and would bring Centrelink debt recovery into line with general legal principles governing the recovery of civil debts.

Evidence review

Human oversight of automated decisions

Two new obligations would be imposed on Services Australia. First, recipients affected by an automated decision must be notified that the decision was automated and told of their options for seeking further information or review. Second, certain high-impact automated decisions would require human oversight before taking effect. These include cancellation of a payment or benefit, raising a debt of $2,000 or more, exercising a discretion, reviewing a decision, and initiating a garnishee arrangement with the ATO. These measures respond directly to Royal Commission recommendation 17.1 on the need for a consistent and compassionate framework for automated decision-making.

Evidence review

Crisis payments and other measures

The bill would extend the timeframe for claiming crisis payments from 7 days to 14 days across four categories: release from gaol or psychiatric confinement, extreme circumstances forcing departure from home, remaining in a home after a family member leaves due to family violence, and arrival on a qualifying humanitarian visa. It would also insert principles of good administration into each Act, establish positive duties for the Secretary drawn from recommendation 10.1, require annual review of compliance activities with parliamentary tabling, and add a requirement that the Secretary have regard to the needs of people in rural, regional and remote areas.

Evidence review

The bill's legislative status

The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on 25 August 2025 by Independent MP Andrew Wilkie. The second reading was moved on introduction and the second reading debate was adjourned. As of July 2026, the bill remains before the House of Representatives. No vote has been held on the second reading.

As a private member's bill, the bill's progress depends on the government allocating House time for private members' business and on the government's disposition toward the bill. The government controls the legislative program in the House of Representatives. For the bill to become law, it would need to pass the House and the Senate and receive royal assent.

The government has implemented some Robodebt Royal Commission recommendations administratively, including abolishing the income averaging debt assessment method and establishing a new integrity framework within Services Australia. Whether the government will introduce its own legislative response or support Mr Wilkie's bill has not been determined. The bill's presence on the notice paper ensures the Royal Commission's recommendations remain a live item of parliamentary business.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer